Those with shortened cranks

[Cyril Haearn]

Possibly the "Elephant in the room" with regard to recumbent cycles is .... WHY ......?

Many, including myself, have ended up on bents through illness or injury preventing them from riding a df bicycle. Following an accident in 2009 I didn't think I would ever cycle again. Then I discovered recumbents after following the 2012 paralympics. I bought a relatively inexpensive tadpole trike and have never looked back. I have got fitter, lost weight but most importantly I can now participate with my family in a sport we all love. After my accident, treatment for severe depression also highlighted a mental condition/illness that I have been suffering from, unbeknownst to me, since my early teens and being able to get back out and ride has been the best therapy I have had and has literally brought me back from the brink and saved my sanity.

... Tapatalk

+1

Would you like to write a bit more about that, I am very interested (I have a mild form of OCD)?

Diolch

[[XAP]Bob]

If you're in the midlands I can take you out...

[UpWrong]

My safety comment relates to the advantages of being nearer the ground and feet first. Broken hips, broken collarbones, broken wrists and head injuries are less likely. I still ride uprights but the consequences of having an off have become more frightening with each passing year and with each friend who gets injured after a fall.

[Dave W]

Another sixty miles this morning, handling remains 'hairy'. Legs are improving so hills are less of a chore. Very comfy, no aches or pains (apart from the legs). If you lived somewhere flat all day rides would be dead easy I think.
Whether handling improves with time remains to be seen.

[UpWrong]

Impressive. Well done So if I remember correctly you are currently running 26" wheels and have the seat on the most forward position?

[Dave W]

Yep

[Geoff.D]

When going uphill on a d/f, in the saddle, there' might come a point when I want to maintain speed by getting out of the saddle. As I've made that manoeuvre I can instantly feel the difference. It immediately gets easier (even if it's short lived!!).

I would ask why it's got easier. What's changed? My legs are the same. I'm pulling back on the bars/hoods the same. The cadence is the same.
The three changes seem to be-
1. I'm further forward, so is my Centre of Gravity. Hence the tangent at which my legs apply force to the chain ring has changed. I will be applying the force nearer to the vertical tangent of the chain ring. It's possible that I'm applying the force through a greater usable/efficient arc either side of this vertical tangent.
2. Because I'm further forward, my legs and arms are pulling/pushing against each other much more in a straight line. So I'll be increasing my ability to use my upper body strength to greater efficiency (equal and opposite reactions are greater in a straight line rather than off-set)
3. I'm rocking the frame slightly, so that my foot is directly over the pedal, and not at an off-set (Q factor). When sitting, however small this Q factor is, it does result in a loss of efficient transfer of leg force to rotational force through the pedal. That loss might be avoided when the frame rocks.

I don't have the maths to analyse these ideas. But, I do know that these changes due to getting out of the saddle just aren't available to me when I'm on the recumbent. The only choice I seem to have (to maintain speed uphill on my 'bent) is to push harder.

[[XAP]Bob]

It certainly brings different muscles into play, and different demands on the main muscles - which is as good as a rest.

Mechanical efficiency from pedal to wheel shouldn't change too much, despite the reduction in offset (not sure that has a significant effect anyway, might be a cosine loss at most).

[Geoff.D]

It certainly brings different muscles into play, and different demands on the main muscles - which is as good as a rest.

Mechanical efficiency from pedal to wheel shouldn't change too much, despite the reduction in offset (not sure that has a significant effect anyway, might be a cosine loss at most).

I agree, entirely.
The Q factor effect will be tiny. As you say ..."a cosine loss at most".
But I was just musing over the dynamics of it all. You know, I know, every recumbentist knows - going uphill is a pig.

Only Mike Burrows seems to think otherwise!!!! "There's no such thing as hills, only resistance to motion"

http://www.madegood.org/bikes/blog/mike ... bent-bike/

[Dave W]

exactly. Hilly ride this morning and this bike is miles off the pace uphill, literally, at least 25% slower. I'm watching the slowest member in the club pulling a quarter of a mile out of me on a long steady climb. You just can't get the same power down, wish I knew why but I can't put my finger on it apart from the bike being heavier. I guess if it was identical in weight to a carbon racer I might have some idea

[hercule]

Take heart, you've not had it that long and you need to adapt - both in terms of muscle strength and coordination. Maybe you won't be claiming KOM titles on it but there are other advantages to riding 'bents. I've heard 1000 miles as a minimum adaptation period, in my case it took a few years. But I enjoyed the journey!

I've mentioned my other passion of running - I never felt that cycling particularly helped my running abilities until I started riding recumbents, I became much better at running hills once I started riding bents regularly. This does support the view that recumbent cycling uses different muscles, in my view.

[Dave W]

350 miles now. See what happens after a 1000.

Don't get me wrong, generally I'm enjoying the journey it's all beginning to feel far more natural and I've been up some hills now that in the beginning I didn't think were possible. Looking forwards to dry roads when I can crank over in the turns.

[[XAP]Bob]

:D exactly. Hilly ride this morning and this bike is miles off the pace uphill, literally, at least 25% slower. I'm watching the slowest member in the club pulling a quarter of a mile out of me on a long steady climb. You just can't get the same power down, wish I knew why but I can't put my finger on it apart from the bike being heavier. I guess if it was identical in weight to a carbon racer I might have some idea

Nope - you will be down on maximum power, but you are climbing more efficiently- which matters on LONG rides.

Dave McCraw has done some power analysis of *his* riding, although I feel the results are probably more widely applicable (they *feel* kind of right).

[531colin]

Cyclists' sore knees are generally thought to be "over-use injuries".....that is doing too much for your (current) fitness, like Joe.....

This is quite topical for me as I’ve just returned from a 5 day tour of Skye, Uist & Barra with my knees and ankles in pieces. It was spinning the bent fully loaded with winter camping up the hills on skye that did it for them. The pain didn’t stop me riding but walking was quite painful.

I’m not short at 6ft and I’m already running 165mm cranks but maybe I should be trying 155’s.

I’m not going to rush out for shorter cranks just yet but I shall look at how longer rides affect my knees and ankles as the year go on and make a decision later.

I had a ride on Wednesday which involved several miles of flat open land into a westerly wind, windspeed in the high teens (mph). Tea at Boroughbridge was never so welcome, i was fed up with sitting on the bike....sore bum, sore feet, sore neck....All the rest of the ride was fine, including the fringes of the Howardian and Cleveland Hills between Coxwold and Kilburn, and the short leg back to Harrogate from Boroughbridge. Most of the time (on an upright) I am moving about....climbing, freewheeling, different pace, (slightly) different position. But once a headwind has you pinned down, its an unremitting grind, no chance to lift your bum, stretch your shoulders, you're just pinned there, punching it out. What about on a 'bent? Do you get much chance to move around, or is it a case of repeating exactly the same pedal stroke thousands of times?
I agree that a change is nearly as good as a rest, and getting out of the saddle is a change; it also allows you to put your bodyweight to good use by putting all your bodyweight (and more) on the pedal.
However, you are not "using different muscles". If we had to carry around all sorts of spare sets of muscles, we would be so heavy we would never get going at all. (set of muscles for running, one for walking, one for jumping, one for riding an upright, one for riding a 'bent, one for getting out of the saddle, one for breaststroke.....you get the picture)
You haven't got loads of different muscles just waiting around for the opportunity to do something once in a while, different activities may use different parts of the range of contraction of muscles. ....a surprisingly small change to your riding position can cause a few aches and pains, until your muscles get used to it.

[[XAP]Bob]

The 'different' muscles is a phrase which is used to describe those different contraction regimes and different partnerships. It's things like the ways in which the small muscles support the main power strokes, as well as the contraction ratios of the those power strokes.

There are a few things you can do on a bent, depending on the bent on question of course... but not as drastic as standing up on a df.
That said, the very sameness does protect from overuse, because that is the action that is trained in... you don't go using a different action because the hill is longer than you've been doing (I.e muscular and cv have to develop together, you can't suddenly combine cv from centuries on the flat with the standing action up Ventoux)

It just makes a different ride. I'd not choose a DF for any ride of significant distance (>10-15 miles) any more.

My current commute is on the edge of that range, and frankly I might be overestimating the distance I would choose a saddle for. Might borrow a modern road bike from someone one day, just for giggles...